(20-03-2016 09:16 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote: I have never seen a definition of blue.

As I said. You have no understanding of even the most basic concepts in play.

Blue is the color that you perceive when observing light of a certain wavelength. All other colors are different wavelengths.

Quote:Can you prove to a color blind person blue exists?

Yes. Light has different wavelengths whether or not you can personally see it.

Quote:If you told him blue does not exist why should he believe you?
What makes your reality more privilege on the spectrum of reality than theirs?

Gibberish.

Learn to pose coherent questions before you go about demanding answers. As it is, you just sound like a stoned high-schooler who just watched The Matrix for the first time.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it." - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner

(20-03-2016 11:27 AM)onlinebiker Wrote: If by "unseen" - you're implying that which cannot be tested and verified - yes - that is irrational.

The very definition of rationality is "Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action."

Thus anything that can be confirmed through logical, repeatable testing is rational. Even if it cannot be seen. (Gasses, electrical force, ect)

Anything that cannot, isn't.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that it "cannot" be confirmed?
Did you test your claim?

Who the fuck are you ?? Bill Clinton???

I'm not playing stupid word games with you.

And I don't give a fuck what your definition of "is" is.

...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.

(20-03-2016 10:59 AM)ClydeLee Wrote: The post in question was after 8 back to back posts between just you and me. I don't know what else to think you think it is from. I think you are wrong here because it was me.. not some other poster who was talking about the direct/indirect evidence questions with you before that.

This was ENTIRELY a back and forth for posts stemmed from me questioning what the implications were in your leading questions in the post last night about the pyramids vs other empirical evidence ideas. When you ask, why did you assume, you're implying or proclaiming that I assumed ... So the I'm just asking question bit is notably false. Or you're just failing at some attempt to try to remain, idk neutral or something, but you keep misstepping.

Also, makes you proclaim I "ASSUMED" the points stated were your belief? What of my posts makes you indicate I assumed that? Like I'd be curious if you see that somewhere. I don't think that... I'm still trying to get where you get your basis from. Even if it's from another person.. Give me that data, I want to know where your collecting and formulating this idea from. That's what I'm after. I'm not asserting it's YOUR idea I want to know where you get the idea itself from.

Can you possibly be honest? or is it entirely an approach of intentional dodging as much as possible. I for one, would like to think there are fellow wide ranging skeptics. I just think you're so close to having a good mindset but so flawed by a few approaches that don't have any basis when you tear it down. It's quite interesting that only positive rep views of yours come from Girly and me. Probably because we have a somewhat similar mental view and as far as my case, i like yours to an extend. it's just jumbled in some strangeness and not in some way that i think one ought to think like me. I just see flaws in too many of your argument or where you draw the line in things, such as your view of personal experience.

My apologies again. There are 2 threads I am replying to at the exact same time in the very same sub section of these forums & the exact same topic of empirical evidence.
You are right. No where in this post have you stated any distinction between empirical evidence and non empirical evidence. I have misinterpreted your base premise.
Do you still wish to proceed with out conversation from before the misunderstanding?

What is your base premise pertaining to the question of "If belief in the unseen is irrational?

I don't really wish to provide as I don't see much opening in this form of communication from you which is a rather unpleasing experience. Though it is at least more enjoyable to see people willingly admitting to fault instead of bypassing it completely.

My base premise? I don't know. That's what my base is. Even more specifically I'm not sure whether I know or don't know.

(20-03-2016 08:01 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote: When something hot accidentally touches you do you rationalize it before you pull away?

Yes. It's called a learned reflexive response, and prior to around age 3 or 4 we have no awareness that something that's hot will burn us. It's only by being taught that this will happen that we later rationalise how we respond; it's not innate. You seem to think that because a human response to stimuli appears to be autonomic, it's not. It may only take milliseconds to transpire, but it's still based on rational thought processes.

Quote:It's been "proven" that we make reflex decisions before we are even aware a decision in needed.

Nope. At this stage there are far too many "might"s, "possibly"s, "could be"s and "seems to"s to satisfy me that anything's been "proven", as you claim.

In fact in the conclusions of the report you cite secondly, I note this:

" The data currently available does not allow drawing definitive conclusions and other interpretations are equally possible" and "The question whether early neural predictors of decision outcome are conscious is currently unresolved and requires more refined methods for assessing consciousness".

(20-03-2016 11:17 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote: My apologies again. There are 2 threads I am replying to at the exact same time in the very same sub section of these forums & the exact same topic of empirical evidence.
You are right. No where in this post have you stated any distinction between empirical evidence and non empirical evidence. I have misinterpreted your base premise.
Do you still wish to proceed with out conversation from before the misunderstanding?

What is your base premise pertaining to the question of "If belief in the unseen is irrational?

I don't really wish to provide as I don't see much opening in this form of communication from you which is a rather unpleasing experience. Though it is at least more enjoyable to see people willingly admitting to fault instead of bypassing it completely.

My base premise? I don't know. That's what my base is. Even more specifically I'm not sure whether I know or don't know.

(20-03-2016 09:01 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote: My favorite film is Life. I can't stop watching it.
Did you get > . ?

is that one based on the board game? I enjoyed that game though my sister got an infamous reputation for being sneaky while playing it.

It's unfortunate for me. You are one of the few people that has the power to show me the flaws in my logic
I hope you change your mind.

Without knowing the state of the human eye the type of color it is seeing cannot be defined.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color
The color of an object depends on both the physics of the object in its environment and the characteristics of the perceiving eye and brain. Physically, objects can be said to have the color of the light leaving their surfaces, which normally depends on the spectrum of the incident illumination and the reflectance properties of the surface, as well as potentially on the angles of illumination and viewing. Some objects not only reflect light, but also transmit light or emit light themselves, which also contribute to the color. A viewer's perception of the object's color depends not only on the spectrum of the light leaving its surface, but also on a host of contextual cues, so that color differences between objects can be discerned mostly independent of the lighting spectrum, viewing angle, etc. This effect is known as color constancy.

The point is blue isn't blue unless you can see it.
If tomorrow the collective human eyeball no longer has the ability to see the color blue, it will no longer exist as the color blue as far as subjective reality is concerned.
My point:
True reality cannot always be objectively defined and absolute certainty is only a guess. Of course I could be wrong, but you guys seem to have a hard time showing me the flaws in my logic. Wish Clydee and Girly were here. I love a good challenge.

(20-03-2016 08:01 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote: When something hot accidentally touches you do you rationalize it before you pull away?

Yes. It's called a learned reflexive response, and prior to around age 3 or 4 we have no awareness that something that's hot will burn us. It's only by being taught that this will happen that we later rationalise how we respond; it's not innate. You seem to think that because a human response to stimuli appears to be autonomic, it's not. It may only take milliseconds to transpire, but it's still based on rational thought processes.

Quote:It's been "proven" that we make reflex decisions before we are even aware a decision in needed.

Nope. At this stage there are far too many "might"s, "possibly"s, "could be"s and "seems to"s to satisfy me that anything's been "proven", as you claim.

In fact in the conclusions of the report you cite secondly, I note this:

" The data currently available does not allow drawing definitive conclusions and other interpretations are equally possible" and "The question whether early neural predictors of decision outcome are conscious is currently unresolved and requires more refined methods for assessing consciousness".

I placed "proven" in brackets deliberately. Reason being the word "proven" seems to hold more value to others than me.
I believe as Girly once said "proven" is a vacuous word. If you also share this belief then my above analogy is meaningless to you. As I believe it should be.
If you believe we should steer clear of conclusions then you may have a lot more in common than you think.